Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CA
Facts:
WON petitioners sugar planters’ associations are clothed with legal personality to
file a suit against, or demand arbitration from, respondents in their own name without
impleading the individual Planters.
Ruling:
The court agreed with the CA which held in the negative because none of the
petitioners were parties or signatories to the milling contracts which is fatal to
petitioners’ cause since they anchor their right to demand arbitration from the
respondent sugar centrals upon the arbitration clause found in the milling contracts.
Under the arbitration clause in these contracts it is the parties thereto who have
the right to submit a controversy or dispute to arbitration.
Even if Section 4 of Republic Act No. 876 allows the agreement to arbitrate to be
signed by a representative, the principal is still the one who has the right to demand
arbitration. Further, Even assuming that petitioners are indeed representatives of the
member Planters who have milling contracts with the respondents and assuming further
that petitioners signed the milling contracts as representatives of their members,
petitioners could not initiate arbitration proceedings in their own name as they had done
in the present case. As mere agents, they should have brought the suit in the name of
the principals that they purportedly represent.